|
Post by papageno on Oct 14, 2005 8:13:41 GMT -4
I have seen the last five minutes, where he talks about the lifter. The fact that he took it at least in part seriously (based on the idea that there is secret technology unknown to the public) is not encouraging.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jul 16, 2005 8:50:15 GMT -4
Natural selection is a far cry from random chance What about those probability figures given for life to arise in the first place? Chemistry is not random chance.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 30, 2005 11:07:33 GMT -4
Is the line about the clown suit the same as the one I heard about the tuxedo? I have no idea. I read the clow suit line somewhere, and I found it appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 6, 2005 7:29:53 GMT -4
I don't know who said this first but it's true,, Intelligent design isn't isn't what? A scientific theory?
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 3, 2005 11:58:13 GMT -4
If you have followed discussions about Intelligent Design, you might recognizes the thread title.
I am posting two links to sites that might be interesting: +http://www.talkdesign.org/ +http://www.creationtheory.org/ (get rid of the plus sign in front of them).
To fuel the discussion: What is intelligent in designing water-dwelling creatures that can drown? If they were designed, the designer must be a sadistic psychopath.
(If this post is unsuitable for the board, feel free to delete it. I just felt sorry for this empty forum.)
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Sept 9, 2007 10:43:54 GMT -4
turbonium, you couldn't refute the validation of the NIST's simulations in the "Selection Bias" thread, and neither can you do it now.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 5, 2007 16:30:33 GMT -4
I'm not sure what the sound of being painted into a corner sounds like, but I think I hear it. In Italian it's the screeching sound of nails on glass when somebody is trying to climb mirrors (you know, to get out of the corner...).
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 10, 2007 11:22:39 GMT -4
I suspect that US cops are a little fast with the Tasers, but Bollyn's paranoia brought this whole thing on himself. If he hadn't acted in the way he did, there never would have been an incident. That is right if he haven't called 911 about the suspect car with 3 armed men nothing would have happened. You assume that they were after him from the beginning.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jul 19, 2007 15:16:47 GMT -4
So, since turbonium has been active on this board in other threads, his absence from this should be taken as a concession that he has no proof to support his claims.
Of course, I do not expect him to come here and admit it.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jul 12, 2007 6:11:55 GMT -4
Answer my questions, turbonium:
Why aren't the engineers rejecting the recommendations on the basis that the probable collapse sequence determined by the NIST is crap, instead of the recommendations being "...overbroad, ambiguous, unenforceable... needlessly increasing the cost of construction and not addressing real safety issues."?
Where are the peer-reviewed papers published by any of those thousands of engineers you have worked with and who are neither incompetent nor evil-doers, proving that the NIST's investigation is not correct or the reports are incomplete?
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jul 10, 2007 16:30:51 GMT -4
Yeah right! Once again Turbonium has been shown to be guilty of poor research and completely wrong.That's because he only looks for things that might vaugely support his case if taken out of context, rather then actually reading what the sources say. Exactly. When pressed, he went from "all the engineers ignored the NIST's reports" to "the NIST was heavily criticized" without blushing.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jul 6, 2007 6:11:52 GMT -4
As to your question, asking if peer-reviewed papers show "the recommendations are not accepted because the probable sequence of collapse determined by the NIST is not correct?" No, but that doesn't mean they agree with it, either. The examples I've cited don't even address the viability (or lack thereof) regarding NIST's WTC collapse theory. So, you don't have any factual basis to accuse the NIST of having published incomplete reports. Stop trying to avoid the issue and provide the evidence that engineers consider the NIST's investigation incorrect or incompletely reported. But reasons such as these are just as damning, if not moreso... ...overbroad, ambiguous, unenforceable...needlessly increasing the cost of construction and not addressing real safety issues.The true litmus test for NIST's findings and conclusions - how are they relevant to the engineers in the future? Obviously, through subsequent recommendations. And the engineers consider NIST's recommendation to be worthless crap. Which means NIST's findings and conclusions about progressive collapse theory are equally worthless crap, because they used them to come up with their recommendation. Then why aren't the engineers rejecting the recommendations on the basis that the probable collapse sequence determined by the NIST is crap, instead of the recommendations being " ...overbroad, ambiguous, unenforceable... needlessly increasing the cost of construction and not addressing real safety issues."? You simply are trying to dodge this question: where are the peer-reviewed papers by any of those thousands of engineers you have worked with and who are neither incompetent nor evil-doers, proving that the NIST's investigation is not correct or the reports are incomplete?
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jul 5, 2007 4:31:10 GMT -4
turbonium,
where are the references to papers published in peer-reviewed engineering journals, published and refereed by those thousands of engineers who are neither incompetent nor evil-doers, showing that the recommendations are not accepted because the probable sequence of collapse determined by the NIST is not correct?
Where is the evidence that those thousands of engineers you have worked with and who are neither incompetent nor evil-doers consider the NIST's reports incomplete?
Also, it is time to address my replies #102 and #110.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 30, 2007 7:40:19 GMT -4
The guy assumes that only the engines could have severed coulumns but doesn't really justify it. Yes the engines are the most massive parts of Boeing 767's but they only compris a fraction of the total mass of those planes. Just because NIST said "the airframe was mostly broken up” does not mean it couldn't have damaged columns. The airframe of the 757 (or Global Hawk LOL) that hit the Pentagon was destroyed as well but it punched a good sized hole in the building's wall in the process The main point of the work by Purdue is to show the mechanical effect of the liquid fuel on the structures. Which is not that great of a surprise, if you think of floods and tsunamis.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Jun 30, 2007 7:34:40 GMT -4
I said... The criticism still stands. Their selection criteria was flawed. Your claim, your burden of proof: where is the evidence that undamaged steel was excluded in the selection? My claim is that NIST's steel selection criteria was flawed. The proof for that claim is within the document itself. Your complaint about the wording is not a proof. You have to provide the evidence that undamaged steel was excluded. I don't know if the volunteers strictly followed the steel criteria list. But since nothing indicates otherwise, it must be assumed that they did follow the list, and did not look for undamaged steel from the impact floors. "Any piece....that might be considered useful" is merely being assumed by you to mean "undamaged steel from the impact floors", among other things. You assume that undamaged steel would not be considered useful. I brought a quote from the report which contradicts your assumption: "These results were for a very small fraction of the steel in the impact and fire zones. Nonetheless, these analyses indicated some zones within WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures." Thank you for finally admitting that the world-wide engineering community has not ignored the NIST's report nor accepted everything in it. Since you cannot provide any critique to the investigation published in peer-reviewed engineering journals, the conclusion is that the engineers world-wide accept the investigation.
|
|